On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:44:05PM -0500, Colburn wrote: > > That's encouraging. Sounds like M$ ... or the government ... customers > [...] > > No it doesn't. RH has *never* published release dates. At least not in > the time between 4.1 and now. MS *always* publishes release dates and > *misses* them royally. That's quite different. RH - in this regard - > doesn't make promises it can't keep, which I think is a *good* thing. > It's bad enough that they feel obliged to release buggy products by > market pressure (at least that's the benevolent explanation I can come > up with...). I'm beginning to wonder where the times are were things > were either "released when ready" (isn't Linus still handling this - > or at least trying to?) or "released early and released often". Both > have their merits.
Linus only weighs in on the release of the stable kernel and then Red Hat usually picks it up in the next release of the distribution. But if you keep up with the "it should be called GNU/Linux" debate, you would probably also catch on to the fact that the kernel (the only piece that is truely "Linux") is only part of what can effect the stablity of a distribution. There is also the GNU portions that also tend to be the foundation of almost the entire distribution as well. This include GCC and GLIBC. With GCC "2.96", it was clear that RH *forced* a release early since the C++ team didn't release often enough. But, I agree that both release methods have merits and I frequently find myself returning to RawHide to rebuild critical production RPMs because the standard distribution didn't contain the features we needed. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
